Page 1 of 3

Unfaithful

Posted: Wed Dec 07, 2016 8:18 pm
by liberty
The electoral college is a constitutional safe guard for the purpose of protecting the people from a dangerous president. It was not designed over rule the will of the people. The people of the states knew all that is mentioned below and voted for trump anyway; that has been settled. The only issues left for the college are these: Is Trump qualified to be president under the Constitution? Did he win the electoral vote? Is he mentally ill and thereby incompetent hold the office? Is he an agent of a foreign power? He is qualified for the office and he did win the electrical vote. There is no proof that he is insane or a foreign agent. Any honorable member of the electoral college has no choice but to vote for him. Any elector who fails to do his duty should never again be trusted with any position of responsibility.

If trump should be disqualified by the college that would not mean that HRC would win because the next in line for consideration would be the Vice president elect so there is no way that she could win.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/05/opini ... .html?_r=0

Why I Will Not Vote for Donald Trump
By CHRISTOPHER SUPRUNDEC. 5, 2016

Credit Mike McQuade
DALLAS — I am a Republican presidential elector, one of the 538 people asked to choose officially the president of the United States. Since the election, people have asked me to change my vote based on policy disagreements with Donald J. Trump. In some cases, they cite the popular vote difference. I do not think presidents-elect should be disqualified for policy disagreements. I do not think they should be disqualified because they won the Electoral College instead of the popular vote. However, now I am asked to cast a vote on Dec. 19 for someone who shows daily he is not qualified for the office.
Fifteen years ago, as a firefighter, I was part of the response to the Sept. 11 attacks against our nation. That attack and this year’s election may seem unrelated, but for me the relationship becomes clearer every day.
George W. Bush is an imperfect man, but he led us through the tragic days following the attacks. His leadership showed that America was a great nation. That was also the last time I remember the nation united. I watch Mr. Trump fail to unite America and drive a wedge between us.
Mr. Trump goes out of his way to attack the cast of “Saturday Night Live” for bias. He tweets day and night, but waited two days to offer sympathy to the Ohio State community after an attack there. He does not encourage civil discourse, but chooses to stoke fear and create outrage.

This is unacceptable. For me, America is that shining city on a hill that Ronald Reagan envisioned. It has problems. It has challenges. These can be met and overcome just as our nation overcame Sept. 11.
The United States was set up as a republic. Alexander Hamilton provided a blueprint for states’ votes. Federalist 68 argued that an Electoral College should determine if candidates are qualified, not engaged in demagogy, and independent from foreign influence. Mr. Trump shows us again and again that he does not meet these standards. Given his own public statements, it isn’t clear how the Electoral College can ignore these issues, and so it should reject him.
Sign Up for the Opinion Today Newsletter
Every weekday, get thought-provoking commentary from Op-Ed columnists, the Times editorial board and contributing writers from around the world.
I have poured countless hours into serving the party of Lincoln and electing its candidates. I will pour many more into being more faithful to my party than some in its leadership. But I owe no debt to a party. I owe a debt to my children to leave them a nation they can trust.
Mr. Trump lacks the foreign policy experience and demeanor needed to be commander in chief. During the campaign more than 50 Republican former national security officials and foreign policy experts co-signed a letter opposing him. In their words, “he would be a dangerous president.” During the campaign Mr. Trump even said Russia should hack Hillary Clinton’s emails. This encouragement of an illegal act has troubled many members of Congress and troubles me.
Hamilton also reminded us that a president cannot be a demagogue. Mr. Trump urged violence against protesters at his rallies during the campaign. He speaks of retribution against his critics. He has surrounded himself with advisers such as Stephen K. Bannon, who claims to be a Leninist and lauds villains and their thirst for power, including Darth Vader. “Rogue One,” the latest “Star Wars” installment, arrives later this month. I am not taking my children to see it to celebrate evil, but to show them that light can overcome it.
Gen. Michael T. Flynn, Mr. Trump’s pick for national security adviser, has his own checkered past about rules. He installed a secret internet connection in his Pentagon office despite rules to the contrary. Sound familiar?
Finally, Mr. Trump does not understand that the Constitution expressly forbids a president to receive payments or gifts from foreign governments. We have reports that Mr. Trump’s organization has business dealings in Argentina, Bahrain, Taiwan and elsewhere. Mr. Trump could be impeached in his first year given his dismissive responses to financial conflicts of interest. He has played fast and loose with the law for years. He may have violated the Cuban embargo, and there are reports of improprieties involving his foundation and actions he took against minority tenants in New York. Mr. Trump still seems to think that pattern of behavior can continue.
The election of the next president is not yet a done deal. Electors of conscience can still do the right thing for the good of the country. Presidential electors have the legal right and a constitutional duty to vote their conscience. I believe electors should unify behind a Republican alternative, an honorable and qualified man or woman such as Gov. John Kasich of Ohio. I pray my fellow electors will do their job and join with me in discovering who that person should be.
Fifteen years ago, I swore an oath to defend my country and Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic. On Dec. 19, I will do it again.

Re: Unfaithful

Posted: Wed Dec 07, 2016 8:35 pm
by rubato
It was the purpose and intention of the electoral college to prevent someone as loathesome and unfit as Donald Trump from becoming president. That was, in fact, the justification for the institution.


Is Trump qualified to be president under the Constitution? NO

Did he win the electoral vote? YES Republican voters are reliably stupid.

Is he mentally ill and thereby incompetent hold the office? YES (Grab them by the pussy is a comment from a sane person? Taking both sides of every argument is a sane person?)

Is he an agent of a foreign power? YES He is Putin's bitch-boy.

He is qualified for the office and he did win the electrical vote. There is no proof that he is insane or a foreign agent. YOU'RE JOKING, SURELY

Any honorable member of the electoral college has no choice but to vote for him. REALLY?

Any elector who fails to do his duty should never again be trusted with any position of responsibility. Any elector who votes for Trump has committed treason or is not of sound mind.



yrs,
rubato

Re: Unfaithful

Posted: Wed Dec 07, 2016 9:08 pm
by Bicycle Bill
I don't often agree whole-heartedly with rubato, but in this case I'll gladly make an exception.  And if enough electors vote for Hillary Rodham Clinton rather than Dumb'old Jackass Trump when it comes time to poll them, then HRC is the President-elect and Mr. Pence, as the VP nominee on the losing ticket, is on the outside looking in.

And just curious ... what is an "electrical vote"?  Sounds like something only members of the IBEW can take part in.
Image
-"BB"-

Re: Unfaithful

Posted: Wed Dec 07, 2016 9:22 pm
by Joe Guy
And just curious ... what is an "electrical" vote?
It is called that because it is quite shocking that Trump won...

Image

Re: Unfaithful

Posted: Wed Dec 07, 2016 9:26 pm
by rubato
Bicycle Bill wrote:I don't often agree whole-heartedly with rubato, but in this case I'll gladly make an exception.  ]

Oh fuck you.

When you are your better self you agree with me nearly all the time.


yrs,
rubato

Re: Unfaithful

Posted: Wed Dec 07, 2016 9:41 pm
by Big RR
As bad as I think a president Trump will be, the idea of 538 political hacks deigning to substitute their judgment for the people in their electoral districts and vote for someone else scares me even more. Hamilton might have loved that idea, but he and the federalists were scared of democracy and what it might mean for the aristocracy. But in reality, while a president Trump could mean the end of America, I would think an electoral college election nullification would mean the end of our system of government and show us once and for all that there is not even a pretense of any democratic processes.

Re: Unfaithful

Posted: Wed Dec 07, 2016 10:40 pm
by Econoline
OTOH, if the Electoral College voted to give the majority of their votes to the winner (by >2,600,000 votes and still counting) of the popular vote, it seems to me that that would actually reaffirm the nation's commitment to the democratic process.

Re: Unfaithful

Posted: Wed Dec 07, 2016 10:53 pm
by Gob
rubato wrote:
Bicycle Bill wrote:I don't often agree whole-heartedly with rubato, but in this case I'll gladly make an exception.  ]

Oh fuck you.

When you are your better self you agree with me nearly all the time.


yrs,
rubato

That's what you get for trying to be nice to Aspergers boy Bill, most of us don't bother any more.

Re: Unfaithful

Posted: Wed Dec 07, 2016 11:00 pm
by Big RR
Econoline wrote:OTOH, if the Electoral College voted to give the majority of their votes to the winner (by >2,600,000 votes and still counting) of the popular vote, it seems to me that that would actually reaffirm the nation's commitment to the democratic process.
Most electors are required by state law to vote for the candidate winning in that state. I endorse supporting the popular vote winner by legal means (like the Interstate Compact), but not on their own volition. As I said, these are a bunch of political hacks, not anyone selected because of any qualification at all.

Re: Unfaithful

Posted: Wed Dec 07, 2016 11:03 pm
by Lord Jim
I don't often agree whole-heartedly with rubato, but in this case I'll gladly make an exception.
You may want to re-evaluate that Bill, since two of his assertions are demonstrably factually false...

(Actually that's pretty good for rube...some of the others are debatable, but for rube to make seven assertions of fact and only have two of them be blatantly and demonstrably false is a huge improvement over his usual batting average...)
Is Trump qualified to be president under the Constitution? NO
No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_T ... nstitution

I guess you and wes had the same US Government teacher, since your understandings of the Constitution seem very comparable...

Just which one of those criteria does Trump not meet, Captain Civics?
Did he win the electoral vote? YES Republican voters are reliably stupid.
This is fascinating...

Sue completely demolished this in a thread earlier today, showing how many Republicans did not vote for Trump, and how Trump could not possibly have won the election with only Republican votes anyway, and yet here it is again...

Just another of the countless examples of how when a notion manages to attach itself to rube's wee small brain no amount of factual information has any chance of dislodging it...
rubato wrote:
Bicycle Bill wrote:I don't often agree whole-heartedly with rubato, but in this case I'll gladly make an exception. ]

Oh fuck you.

When you are your better self you agree with me nearly all the time.


yrs,
rubato
Once again rube demonstrates his unique form of graciousness in accepting a compliment...

BTW Bill, in case you didn't know, rube is the poster who lives in Santa Cruz... ;)

Re: Unfaithful

Posted: Wed Dec 07, 2016 11:06 pm
by dales
That's what you get for trying to be nice to Aspergers boy Bill, most of us don't bother any more.
Yeah, even trying to give the schlub the benefit of the doubt, leaves one with feeling having been kicked in the balls.

Too Bad. 8-)

Re: Unfaithful

Posted: Wed Dec 07, 2016 11:18 pm
by Lord Jim
It wasn't too long ago that somebody around here, (oldr I believe) apologized to rube (when based on the exchange, it was clearly rube who should have been apologizing) and rube's gracious reply to the apology he wasn't even entitled to was to say it was inadequate... :loon

Rube has the interpersonal skills and social grace of a Monitor lizard...

He ain't exactly what you'd call a "people person"... :D

Re: Unfaithful

Posted: Wed Dec 07, 2016 11:45 pm
by wesw

Re: Unfaithful

Posted: Thu Dec 08, 2016 12:27 am
by liberty
If some qualified experts could make a convincing case that trump has a mental illness, even a mild one, then the electors could be justified in not voting for trump, but instead his vice president. However, if Trump is in control of his mental faculties then democratic principles requires them to vote for him.

Is it not 12/19/2016 when the EC votes after that it is over. Congress has to certify it.

Re: Unfaithful

Posted: Thu Dec 08, 2016 2:24 am
by Bicycle Bill
LJ, you are correct in that strictly by the wording in the Constitution Trump is qualified to be President (so, for that matter, am I, as well as probably you and even Asperger's boy).  I was considering "qualification" as being fit and able to be the President; that is, having the necessary skills, temperament, and experience.
Image 
-"BB"-

Re: Unfaithful

Posted: Thu Dec 08, 2016 2:59 am
by Lord Jim
being fit and able to be the President; that is, having the necessary skills, temperament, and experience.
I completely agree with you on that score; Trump is a complete fail on all those counts...

But our resident cockwomble made specific reference to the Constitutional qualifications, and that's what I was addressing.

It should certainly come as no surprise that rube's "knowledge" of the Constitution is complete bollox. There's no reason the Constitution should be any different from virtually any other subject...

ETA:

What's going to be truly hilarious, is when rube returns to this thread with his shovel in hand to try and create some ridiculous way to claim his ignorant and erroneous assertion was correct...

I start to get giggles of anticipation just thinking about him doing that...his irresistible compulsion for repetitive hole-digging (fueled by a pathological intellectual insecurity that prevents him from ever admitting to error) is one of the things I most enjoy about his participation here... :ok

Re: Unfaithful

Posted: Thu Dec 08, 2016 3:38 am
by Burning Petard
I beg to point out the quote from the Constitution is about Eligible, not about Qualified.

And, "That's what you get for trying to be nice to Aspergers boy Bill, most of us don't bother any more" So Gob, what do you think about the men floating around here in the States, that the youngest son of The Donald 'is on the autistic spectrum'" (the new euphemism for Aspergers} and that is the real reason he and his mother are not moving to the White House.

snailgate

Re: Unfaithful

Posted: Thu Dec 08, 2016 3:47 am
by Lord Jim
I beg to point out the quote from the Constitution is about Eligible, not about Qualified.
Well SG, unless you can point to some other section of the Constitution that talks about a separate list of Constitutionally mandated "qualifications" for the job, then in this context "qualified under the Constitution to be President" and "eligible under the Constitution to be President " mean exactly the same thing...

The only "qualifications" listed are the requirements for "eligibility"...

But it was a nice try... :ok

Re: Unfaithful

Posted: Thu Dec 08, 2016 5:19 am
by dales
'is on the autistic spectrum'" (the new euphemism for Aspergers
The term is not an euphemism.

The DSM V has now placed it on the Autistic Disorder Spectrum instead of being categorized as a separate disorder as was the case in the DSM IV-TR.

Re: Unfaithful

Posted: Thu Dec 08, 2016 7:14 pm
by rubato
"The best gift we can give to other people is the gift of being our honest selves."
Fred Rogers


You people really do lack the ability to read and parse what you have read. If a new idea ever appeared in your mind it would be hunted down and killed by the fog of hatred which overlays all.


yrs,
rubato